from Claire Robinson, WEEKLY WATCH editor
------------------------------------------------------------
Dear all:
An long-overdue attempt to reform USAID programmes for the benefit of their African recipients - which even Dubya has been embarrassed into supporting - is being killed by vested interests within the U.S. (THE AMERICAS).
Bananas are often the unlikely focus of much pro-biotech scaremongering, along the lines that they are in rapid decline and only biotech can save them. The latest incarnation of this myth comes courtesy of our old friend Dr Florence Wambugu and her colleagues at DuPont (AFRICA).
Good news has emerged from Hawaii, where citizen groups have succeeded in stalling the Board of Ag's illegal attempt to allow a biotech company to grow GM algae without a proper environmental assessment (THE AMERICAS).
Claire This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
www.gmwatch.org / www.lobbywatch.org
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONTENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOBBYWATCH
AFRICA
THE AMERICAS
AUSTRALASIA
EUROPE
THE OTHER TERRORISTS
BIOSAFETY
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOBBYWATCH
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ GM CROPS CUT GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, SAYS REPORT
Monsanto has commissioned a report from PG Economics Ltd which purports to show, amongst much else, that GM crops cut greenhouse gas emissions. The report claims, "This reduction results from decreased fuel use, about 475 million gallons in the past nine years, and additional soil carbon sequestration because of reduced plowing or improved conservation tillage associated with biotech crops. In 2004, this reduction was equivalent to eliminating more than 22 billion pounds of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, or removing 5 million cars - one-fifth of cars registered in the United Kingdom - from the road for one year."
But reduced plowing or improved conservation tillage - low or no till agriculture - does not require GM crops. Land agent Mark Griffiths quotes the analysis of the US Dept of Agriculture (USDA) own analysis on this: "Using herbicide-tolerant seed did not significantly affect no-till adoption." In fact, from USDA's data it seems to have somewhat stagnated post-GM, whereas many non-GM farmers in other parts of the world adopted no-till to a far greater extent than GM farmers in the U.S..
A paper summarising the new report has been published by the Journal of Agrobiotechnology Management & Economics (aka AgBioForum). Although this is being presented to journalists as a peer reviewed journal, it has CS Prakash on its board and is funded by the Illinois-Missouri Biotechnology Alliance whose purpose is "to fund biotechnology research... directed at expanding the volume of profitable businesses in the US food and agricultural sector".
http://www.imba.missouri.edu/
The science in the report is less than impressive. It's not even clear where half of the figures come from. Most of the references are presentations at biotech conferences and unpublished articles and very few appear to have been peer reviewed. Some of the cited papers are from PG Economics Ltd itself whose biotech reports are almost invariably funded by the industry.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5825
+ LMer SPEAKS ON THE GM FOOD DEBATE: WHO WON THE ARGUMENT?
LMer Tony Gilland of the Institute of Ideas held forth on this subject in London this week. The blurb gives his proposition as "consumer and environmental groups have adopted a flippant attitude towards scientific endeavour in general, and GM technology in particular."
Gilland, who has previously claimed, "The farm-scale trials are an unnecessary obstacle to the introduction of this beneficial technology" (particularly, perhaps, as they showed negative effects from GM crops!), seems to be blaming the failure of GM on anything and anybody but the technology itself. For more on Gilland, and his revealing behaviour at another dinner-table debate, see "Inside LM" at
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5824
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=61&page=G
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFRICA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ ZIMBABWE, ZAMBIA STANCE ON GM FOOD HAILED
International scientists, including those from the US, have praised Zimbabwe and Zambia for rejecting GM food donations from the West to feed their rural folk facing food shortages.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5821
+ "SMOKE, MIRRORS AND POVERTY" - BIOTECH'S DECEPTIVE FICTION
GM WATCH readers will be familiar with the role of Monsanto-trained scientist Dr Florence Wambugu in massively hyping the failed GM sweet potato project in Kenya. But she's also been doing a similar job on tissue cultured bananas, a joint project of Wambugu's Africa Harvest and DuPont.
The true extent of Wambugu's deceit was exposed in a paper published last month that totally demolishes the various claims of Wambugu and her collaborators.
In "Smoke, Mirrors and Poverty", Joanna Chataway - a Professor in Biotechnology and Development at the Open University - and James Smith - an African Studies specialist at the University of Edinburgh - analyse Wambugu's project and show how Wambugu has created what the authors term a (fictional) "crisis narrative".
Wambugu does this by:
1. establishing the banana as an important crop in East Africa for rural development, for food security and for income generation.
2. documenting a very serious decline in yield over the past 20 years.
3. attributing the decline to massive levels of infection
4. claiming her tissue culture (TC) bananas project in Kenya has had "incredible" successes in solving this problem: increasing banana productivity from 20 to 45 tons per hectare and tripling incomes for farmers with multiple benefits for their families and society.
Although tissue culture is a relatively unsophisticated, and largely uncontroversial, biotech technique that does not involve GM, Wambugu has been keen to draw the widest possible conclusions from the project,claiming it has "demonstrated that biotechnology can have a positive impact on hunger, malnutrition and poverty" in Africa.
The trouble is that, just as with the GM sweet potato, there's no credible evidence that any of Wambugu's claims are true - quite the opposite!
The authors show:
1. A VITAL CROP: Far from being central to Kenyan agriculture, "the banana is not an important crop within the majority of the agricultural system" and the majority of rural households "cultivate very few banana plants". Nor do bananas make a significant contribution to rural people's incomes or calorific intake.
2. RAPID DECLINE: FAO time series data of mean annual yields for Kenya between 1975 and 2003 show "there is no discernable decrease in banana yields over the past 20 years... In fact, if anything there has been a significant increase in yields in Kenya... over that period." This is thee exact opposite of what Wambugu and her collaborators claim.
3. MASSIVE INFESTATION: Wambugu provides "no empirical evidence" to support her assertion that Kenya's banana orchards are badly infested by pests and diseases.
4. "INCREDIBLE" SUCCESSES: The evidence Wambugu bases claims of doubled yields and tripled incomes on is difficult to assess because, "No published peer reviewed papers seem to exist to document the impacts of TC banana projects in Kenya."
The authors own research, however, showed "a mixed reaction amongst farmers involved in the projects and documented considerable disappointment from many of them."
They also found that Wambugu and her collaborators had ignored some important production and marketing constraints and small farmers they interviewd complained, "TC bananas are not meant for local cultivation."
The authors also note that, "farmers who planted TC bananas were encouraged to greatly increase their investment in banana growing... Without viable markets this clearly left farmers in a vulnerable position."
The authors conclusion on Wambugu's crisis narrative is that, "Essentially, TC bananas were pushed as a technology solution and not examined sufficiently from a demand perspective."
James Smith also tellingly notes that this type of "narrative prevails amongst a whole range of literature supporting biotechnological development in Africa."
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5823
+ THE TRUTH ABOUT GM COTTON IN SOUTH AFRICA
GM Watch has been drawn into a discussion about the success or otherwise of thisGM showcase project.
A 2004 Rockefeller Foundation study paints a glowing picture of Bt cotton adoption in South Africa. It implies Bt cotton adoption has created benefits for more or less everyone (and by inference throughout the developing world): large- and small-scale producers, input suppliers and consumers.
But these claims are exposed by a 2005 report by BioWatch South Africa, "Bt cotton in Makhatini, South Africa: The success story that never was". http://www.grain.org/seedling_files/seed-05-04-3.pdf
One of the authors of the BioWatch report, Elfrieda Pschorn-Strauss, comments: "Farmers always had debt, but now their inability to pay back has caused... creditors to withdraw just 4 years after Bt cotton was introduced...
"... in contrast to what other short term studies and industry propaganda says, Bt cotton did not better farmers' circumstances, instead they are now exposed to even more risk because Bt cotton seed is double the price of normal cotton seed. Also, a technology that is so dependent on outside institutional support... is not sustainable for African farmers as it creates a very high level of dependency and risk."
Elfrieda adds that farmers have little choice but to plant GM cotton, "In a survey we did 4 years ago, there were 12 cotton varieties available in South Africa. In a 2003 survey these whittled down to 4 of which three were GM cotton."
[Ref. for Rockefeller study: Marnus Gouse, Carl Pray, and David Schimmelpfennig, "The Distribution of Benefits from Bt Cotton Adoption in South Africa" University of Pretoria, South Africa; Rutgers University; USDA Economic Research Service, 2004)]
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5811
------------------------------------------------------------
THE AMERICAS
------------------------------------------------------------
+ U.S.: AFRICAN FOOD FOR AFRICA'S STARVING IS ROADBLOCKED IN CONGRESS
A proposal to change the law to allow the US federal government to buy food in Africa for Africans facing starvation instead of paying enormous sums to ship it from America has been stalled in Congress.
Why? Because the proposal challenges the political bargain that has formed the basis for U.S. food aid over the past half century: that American generosity must be good for American agriculture. Current law stipulates that all food aid provided by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) be grown by American farmers and mostly shipped on US vessels.
The new proposal, which has Bush's support, has run into opposition from three interests some critics call the Iron Triangle of food aid: agribusiness, the shipping industry and charitable organizations.
This dependency of US agencies, such as CARE and Catholic Relief Services, on the US food aid system helps explain why they have at times ended up acting as international policemen and marketers for the US biotech industry!
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5826
+ GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT PIGWEED CONFIRMED IN TENNESSEE
We previously reported how Roundup resistant palmer pigweed - considered one of the toughest herbicide-resistant weeds to deal with - had been found infesting 500 acres of Roundup Ready cotton in central Georgia, USA. Now it's been found in Tennessee.
Resistant weeds are raising farmers' costs, undermining no-till agriculture, which was coming in before Roundup Ready crops, and causing more chemicals to be poured on the land.
To get effective weed control farmers are having to resort to poorly regarded chemicals like 2,4-D and getting out the plough. As Tennessee Extension weed specialist Larry Steckel notes, "With glyphosate-resistant horseweed we've already seen a reduction in no-till acres."
He also notes that the use of extra chemicals with Roundup Ready crops is now almost universal. An informal survey he did of retailers showed that in the last year, "they believe around 90 percent of our cotton had a pre-emerge (herbicide) put on. Primarily, the reason for that was control of glyphosate-resistant horseweed."
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5818
+ FARMERS BLAMED FOR "MISUSE OF GENE-ALTERED CROPS"
In fulfillment of an ancient GMWATCH prophecy that farmers will be blamed for the failures of GM crops, the proliferation of glyphosate-resistant weeds has been blamed on... farmers. An article in Monsanto's home-town rag, the St Louis Post-Despatch, notes that eight species of glyphosate- resistant weeds have been classified globally - five in the US - since 1996.
Farmers are accused of irresponsibly planting Roundup Ready crops in the same fields year after year, thus endangering the viability of "one of the most effective, relatively safe and commonly used agricultural weedkillers".
There's no mention of the fact that exactly this kind of mindless junk-farming has been encouraged by the type of techno-fix Monsanto's been promoting. Nor does the article offer any explanation for how come Monsanto hasn't been actively printing warning labels, placing advertisements and inspiring articles warning farmers against this kind of abuse of the technology. Finally, it doesn't address the major problem that in many areas of the US and Canada, it's difficult or impossible to buy seed that isn't Roundup Ready!
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5815
+ NEW EPA RESEARCH HEAD COMES WITH TIGHT CORPORATE TIES
Charging that the Environmental Protection Agency is increasingly falling under the grasp of corporate interests, a coalition of government employees has urged federal lawmakers to deny a top spot within the agency to a White House nominee who is a strong free-market advocate with tight corporate ties.
The US Senate is set to vote to confirm George M. Gray as the second-in-command at the EPA Office of Research and Development. The executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility says the "list of George Gray's corporate sponsors reads like a murderer's row of the top polluters in the country." He warned that Gray is likely to expand the EPA's use of corporate research money.
Since President George W. Bush took office, the EPA has nearly doubled the number of research-and-development agreements with industry associations and companies. The American Chemical Council, the nation's largest chemical industry lobby, is the agency's biggest partner.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5813
+ COURT ORDERS PUBLIC OVERSIGHT OF GM ALGAE PROJECT IN HAWAII
Citizen groups have obtained a court judgment in their favour in a lawsuit challenging the state Board of Agriculture's approval of a project to mass-produce potentially dangerous GM algae on the Kona coast of the Island of Hawai'i. The judge agreed with the citizen groups that the Board was required to comply with the environmental review process under the Hawai'i Environmental Policy Act (HEPA) before approving the project. The Court granted the groups' request for a judgment declaring that, at minimum, an environmental assessment (EA) was required for the project, and that the Board's approval without such review was invalid.
Said Earthjustice attorney Isaac Moriwake, who represented the citizen groups, "The state needs to be reminded that environmental review is not a nuisance to be brushed aside, but a basic public duty of all agencies."
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5822
------------------------------------------------------------
AUSTRALASIA
------------------------------------------------------------
+ CANOLA INDUSTRY MUST CLARIFY GM ISSUE OR LOSE MARKETS
A major east coast canola crusher has warned the domestic industry to sort out the GM canola issue or risk losing premium markets. There have been reports of GM contamination of up to 0.5 per cent in some commercial canola varieties. Pete MacSmith, from MacSmith Milling in New South Wales, says his customers are becoming concerned they are paying a premium for canola, which may not be GM-free.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5816
------------------------------------------------------------
EUROPE
------------------------------------------------------------
+ WTO RULING ON EU GM LAWS DELAYED
A World Trade Organization dispute panel ruling on the EU's alleged moratorium on market authorizations for new GM products is being put off until after the WTO's Hong Kong ministerial conference in December. The panel has informed the EU and the three complainants in the dispute - the US, Argentina, and Canada - that its preliminary ruling, which had been due October 10, will now be postponed until the first week of January 2006.
Although the panel did not explicitly link the delay with Hong Kong, it has been noted that the postponement will allow the WTO to avoid having the dispute become an issue at the ministerial conference, which is expected to be targeted by thousands of anti-globalization protestors.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5820
+ GM CROP "RUINS FIELDS FOR 15 YEARS"
An article in The (UK) Independent comments on the British research we recently reported:
GM crops contaminate the countryside for up to 15 years after they have been harvested, startling new government research shows. The findings cast a cloud over the prospects of growing the modified crops in Britain, suggesting that farmers who try them out for one season will find fields blighted for a decade and a half.
Financed by GM companies and Margaret Beckett's Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the report effectively torpedoes the government's strategy for introducing GM oilseed rape to this country. Ministers have stipulated that the crops should not be grown until rules are worked out to enable them to "co-exist" with conventional ones. But the research shows that this is effectively impossible.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5814
+ FIVE FACE TRIAL OVER SAINSBURY'S GM-FED MILK
Five people arrested for trying to stop the distribution of Sainsbury's GM-fed milk went on trial 10-12 October at Avon Magistrates Court (Yate, near Bristol). The five were charged with Aggravated Trespass and face a maximum 3-month jail sentence, after blockading Sainsbury's Bristol distribution depot for South West England. They were preventing Sainsbury's milk from animals fed on GMOs from being distributed. This GM-fed milk is unlabelled, has never been tested for health safety and may pose a particular risk to children. The judge said the complex issues involved required careful consideration and so the defendants must wait until November the 1st to hear the judge's decision.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5810
+ GMOs OUT OF CONTROL IN ROMANIA
Massive illegal cultivation of GM crops threatens farmers and the economy in Romania. At a Greenpeace press conference in Bucharest, Monsanto's former general manager in Romania warned that Romanian authorities have totally lost control over GMOs in the country.
During a research tour in Romania, Greenpeace discovered illegal growing of GE soya in ten counties of the country's total 42. Gabriel Paun, Greenpeace campaigner in Romania said: "In the past few months we have found GE potatoes, GE plums and now it turns out that even the commercial planting of GE soya happens illegally. What's next? The Romanian government must act immediately and take back control of the situation."
Mr Dragos Dima, former Monsanto general manager in Romania, said: "I left the company because I expressed my concerns regarding the introduction of GM technology in Romania. I believed that neither Romania nor the company were ready and able to monitor and control the GM technology. Unfortunately, the management has not listened to my concerns and the situation today shows a total lack of control over the GM technology."
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5817
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE OTHER TERRORISTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ SCIENTISTS RECREATE DEADLY FLU VIRUS
Scientists at the US government's Centres for Disease Control and Prevention have recreated the 1918 Spanish flu strain that killed around 50 million people. While the researchers argue the work will improve protection against natural flu viruses, critics say there is a real danger the virus will escape, with potentially disastrous consequences.
Like the current Asian bird flu, the 1918 Spanish flu strain appears to have mutated to jump from birds to humans.
Many scientists were alarmed at the recreation and particularly that the full genetic sequence was to be published on an online genetic database for the benefit of terrorists, er, sorry, the general public.
Glenn Ashton commented, "As for the bloody fools thinking that they can contain this baby in a lab, well, hello. Where did the anthrax used just post 9/11 come from? Mars or the US Biowarfare labs at Fort Detrick?"
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5819
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
BIOSAFETY
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ WHITHER BIOSAFETY?
An important report from GRAIN with the above title says that in Africa, Asia and Latin America, the Biosafety Protocol is not generating the anticipated effective legislation at the national level: "In country after country, we see laws and policies being put in place to facilitate the entry of GM crops, even as governments proclaim their concern for biosafety and adherence to the Protocol. People in Latin America call these laws 'Monsanto Laws'.
"... The bottom line for GRAIN and our partners throughout the world is that GM crops are completely incompatible with the principles of food sovereignty. GM crops are corporate high-tech, patented creations that cannot be integrated into locally based and farmer-led agricultural systems without harming them. In effect, GM crops are a fundamental threat to such systems. GM crops pose inherent risks - health risks, environmental risks, socioeconomic risks, and cultural risks. We haven't seen a single GM crop in the market or in the research pipeline that could justify such risks, particularly for poor countries with large agricultural populations. In this context, a truly effective biosafety regime would keep GM crops out. You can't have it both ways: if GM crops are in, then biosafety is out. The problem is that governments - under increasing pressure from an aggressive GM lobby - are more often doing the reverse: using biosafety legislation to sanctify bringing GM crops in.
"... Biosafety legislation processes are all-too-easily being co-opted into tools for a GM industry hell-bent on imposing GMOs. These processes generally happen behind closed doors, far from grassroots realities, when they need to come down to the fields and the streets, where the issues matter most. Real biosafety will not happen until this situation is reversed."
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5827